211–220 of 352 posts
> Do you think rich people on their own jets get TSA patdowns the same way? No. What we are creating is a state of freedom for the rich, and compliant abuse for the majority of the citizens. Rich people aren't going to hijack their own jet and kill themselves in the name of Allah.
Pretty much no one is. You're talking about something astronomically rare.
There's an update on the page: Update 2, April 11, 11:15ET: Some readers have suggested that the allegedly deleted tweets might have initially appeared as replies to now-deleted tweets, which would explain why they are missing. However, numerous users contacted by TNW rejected this premise, claiming the missing posts were standard tweets. I'm betting it is something like this, or a related "Twitter did some weird UI…
If Twitter wanted to actively work with United on damage limitation they'd start by not running Twitter moments about the event for the whole day and suppressing the circulation of the video, not deleting a percentage of sarcastic @mentions the following day. And probably delete that United CEO response too...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's theirs to do with as they see fit. I don't think you should take for granted that this is true. Even privately owned things still must abide by the law of countries they operate in, and even that is just the most crude level of regulation and responsibility a public service has. Yes, public service is still public even if privately owned. Anything operating open to the general public in this way has certain re…
>A lot of the problems we have in our society now result from the abdication of those responsibilities by the people (and corporations) that act in public without taking responsibility for those actions. Such as?
the current state of governance as well is strongly impacted by the pathologies of shareholder capitalism, which leads to businesses seeking to increase their private profits at the expense of literally everything else, including a scorched earth approach to legal regulation that serves the public benefit. the financing of climate-change denial propaganda campaigns by the coal industry is a very good example of this. another good example would be the private prison industry, and its associated lobbyists seeking to increase rates of incarceration.
this applies to individuals as well though, not just corporations. in many places, people have abdicated their responsibilities to their communities, seeking to live in walled off communities that have no interaction with "others" outside the barricades.
I could go on. I think you get the idea.
> Do you think rich people on their own jets get TSA patdowns the same way? No. What we are creating is a state of freedom for the rich, and compliant abuse for the majority of the citizens. Rich people aren't going to hijack their own jet and kill themselves in the name of Allah.
Neither am I going to commit a terrorist act. What is your point? That it is okay for the rich get to live under a different set of rules?
There's an update on the page: Update 2, April 11, 11:15ET: Some readers have suggested that the allegedly deleted tweets might have initially appeared as replies to now-deleted tweets, which would explain why they are missing. However, numerous users contacted by TNW rejected this premise, claiming the missing posts were standard tweets. I'm betting it is something like this, or a related "Twitter did some weird UI…
Eg: complaining about Tweet being deleted: https://twitter.com/iknowimbitter/status/851640007500718081 Original(?) tweet, 7 hours prior: https://twitter.com/iknowimbitter/status/851544321564323841
Complaint: https://twitter.com/TalkIBC/status/851604796113129476 Original, 1 hour prior: https://twitter.com/TalkIBC/status/851581587967934464
Complaint: https://twitter.com/MickFerry/status/851564908915437568 Original, 6 hours prior: https://twitter.com/MickFerry/status/851474942789079040
I tend to think my theory about spam/troll filtering might be close to correct, but I look forward to finding out exactly what happened.
This is true. I just checked mine from last night and it's gone. I have posted a new one. Let's see if it stays.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I wonder if there's going to be a market developing for services that look like current services, but actually cost money somehow. Probably a billion-dollar-level opportunity for figuring out how to charge for a Facebook or Google or Twitter a couple of bucks a month. You're really overestimating people's willingness to pay for a service that's already free and convenient. There's really no good comp for tens of mil…
There are tons of alternative social networks to Facebook, I run several of them. People are more than happy to pay a few $$ a month to not be tracked, censored or advertised at. Even completely free you can be profitable just selling 'credits' to send e-gifts etc. Facebook is functionally crippled, they still don't even have a dislike button.
Would you care to tell us more about this/these ??
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First of all, I'm not a libertarian, I'm a pretty solid liberal and think the government should regulate corporations when they break the letter or even the spirit of the law or when they harm the market or consumers for profit or otherwise. My objection is to the idea that twitter meets the criteria of harming consumers, because people use the services provided by twitter, for free, of their own volition. Twitter do…
> if someone doesn't like how twitter operates, nothing is stopping anyone from moving to another platform. This statement is weirdly detached from reality. The value of a social network is the ability to connect to people. Unless you're, like, Oprah, you cannot unilaterally decree that everyone you follow and everyone who follows you is going to move to another social network. So yes, there is a huge thing stopping…
I think that statement is the one that is detached from reality; the reality where twitter is of negligible importance beyond shitposting with famous people.
> This is kind of like saying, "There's nothing stopping you from eating sand." It's technically true, but eating sand will not yield the same results as eating food.
You're comparing a choice between messaging apps with the choice between eating food (necessary to survive) and dirt, and I'm the one that is detached from reality? Nobody needs to use twitter. Let me repeat that again because it is the fundamental point that you and many others in this thread seem to be missing
Nobody needs to use twitter.
You won't die if you won't don't use it. You won't lose your job if you don't use it. You will still be able to communicate with your family, friends, and everyone you care to know online if you don't use it. There are tons of other social networking apps and websites out there. People use twitter because they like it. If the twitter userbase has a problem, they can start a trending hashtag or an internet petition or something else to get twitter to change its behavior, but twitter has no obligation to listen besides the obligation they have to corporate shareholders, because they provide their services for free and nothing prevents those users from moving to another platform.
The real outrage in the airline industry is the fact that we allowed security theatre in the form of TSA to get so damn powerful in the first place. There is no reason to be allowing naked x-ray vision scans, pat downs that border on or actually are assault, etc. As Bruce Schneier said, the one thing they did right after 9/11 was to make the cock-pit doors reinforced and locked from the inside. Do you think rich peop…
You lost me at this point. That's hateful populist rhetoric.